Information acquired from a stop cannot retroactively justify it

Defendant was stopped and frisked because he matched the description of a trespasser. When he was seen, he was doing nothing wrong. His stop and frisk was unjustified. After acquired information from the defendant cannot justify the search. United States v. Hughes, 517 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2008):

The district court ruled that the frisk was justified because the officer became aware that Hughes was on supervision and affiliated with a gang. This information can support reasonable suspicion to frisk only if it were received before the frisk. As the timing of the computer check is “not clear,” it cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion. See Carter v. United States, 729 F.2d 935, 940 (8th Cir. 1984) (burden is on the government to justify warrantless search). Further, the officer testified that the first thing he normally does when he stops individuals is to “have the person place their hands on the vehicle and I pat them down and I frisk them.”

Publishing traffic offenders’ social security numbers on a municipal website did not constitutionally invade a privacy interest. Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 2008 FED App. 0089P (6th Cir. 2008).*

Defendant’s consulting with her attorney before consenting showed that it was voluntary. United States v. Boulette, 265 Fed. Appx. 895 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished)*:

Application of these factors support the district court’s finding that Thompson’s consent was voluntarily given. Thompson spoke with Agent Warren prior to his entry, and she permitted him to come inside to discuss the situation further. After Agent Warren explained the circumstances of Boulette’s arrest to Thompson, she called her attorney for advice and spoke with him for about ten minutes. Moreover, she allowed Agent Warren to speak with her attorney prior to giving consent. The testimony reflects that Thompson was aware of her right to refuse consent, and only did so after careful consideration and upon the advice of her attorney.

District court did not err in sua sponte granting summary judgment on an unlawful claim not explicitly raised when all the facts shown justified it under Randolph. Zamora v. Smith, 267 Fed. Appx. 602 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

Fact questions remained on the necessity of Tasering the plaintiff, so summary judgment denied. Mattos v. Agarano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13201 (D. Haw. February 20, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.